I mean, I get it. Anarchy looks so great sometimes. But I like roads and schools and hospitals and firemen; and we need to.elect someone who ensure those persist.
And then it’s down to choosing the least-worst bunch to do that. And that’s how it’s been for decades.
So, ask yourself: is changing out this regime and losing a bit of healthcare and a bit of infrastructure and a bit of other things that make life livable here, is that a reasonable exchange?
If you say yes, I respect you. If you say no, I respect you. But we can’t vote single-issue: we have a choice between leadership packages, and we need to evaluate them as a whole. The yanks lost their election by voting single-issue, and ended up allowing the worst choice ever to win.
Your take is so weak. The “yanks” lost the election because of disinformation campaigns and low information voters. By placating fascist political action, all you are is delaying the inevitable decline of civilization. You’re a frog sitting in a warming pot complimenting the relaxing pond.
I’ll vote for people who support genocide if they will pass a little bit less publicly owned infrastructure into the hands of private capital is a pathetic position to take.
The dichotomy of anarchy and voting is confusing. Anarchy in context probably means lawlessness. Defining anarchy as lawlessness ignores anarchy as a political philosophy.
Roads, schools, hospitals and fire departments do not require bosses. Anarchy keeps infrastructure without bosses.
Voting puts bosses in place to make decisions. Anarchy prefers consensus building between effected parties.
People deserve to make more decisions in how their lives are run. A lack of respect for laws passed by our bosses is fitting.
Voting for bosses that make laws to chain people who can run their own school or hospital is unnecesary. Vote because it is the extent of power afforded to us now. Concurrently build better systems and power structures like anarchy.
Anarchism is the ideology. Anarchy is the implentation. Anarchism can cause less confusion in people conditioned to think anarchy is a society without law or order.
Also, governments can build infrastructure without supporting foreign genocide.
The Original Commenter (OC) of this thread isn’t saying they want to abolish government entirely. They are saying that government has been twisted and no longer represents the wishes of its people.
I don’t know maybe it is better. Yes many will die horribly but already is, just in another part of the world because of governments that are being used as tongs by billionaires
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I mean, I get it. Anarchy looks so great sometimes. But I like roads and schools and hospitals and firemen; and we need to.elect someone who ensure those persist.
And then it’s down to choosing the least-worst bunch to do that. And that’s how it’s been for decades.
So, ask yourself: is changing out this regime and losing a bit of healthcare and a bit of infrastructure and a bit of other things that make life livable here, is that a reasonable exchange?
If you say yes, I respect you. If you say no, I respect you. But we can’t vote single-issue: we have a choice between leadership packages, and we need to evaluate them as a whole. The yanks lost their election by voting single-issue, and ended up allowing the worst choice ever to win.
So vote carefully.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Your take is so weak. The “yanks” lost the election because of disinformation campaigns and low information voters. By placating fascist political action, all you are is delaying the inevitable decline of civilization. You’re a frog sitting in a warming pot complimenting the relaxing pond.
shiturdgensider@lemmings.world 1 month ago
the yanks lost their election because they were ready to throw foreigners under the bus.
Part4@infosec.pub 1 month ago
I’ll vote for people who support genocide if they will pass a little bit less publicly owned infrastructure into the hands of private capital is a pathetic position to take.
It absolutely is not worthy of respect.
for_some_delta@beehaw.org 1 month ago
The dichotomy of anarchy and voting is confusing. Anarchy in context probably means lawlessness. Defining anarchy as lawlessness ignores anarchy as a political philosophy.
Roads, schools, hospitals and fire departments do not require bosses. Anarchy keeps infrastructure without bosses.
Voting puts bosses in place to make decisions. Anarchy prefers consensus building between effected parties.
People deserve to make more decisions in how their lives are run. A lack of respect for laws passed by our bosses is fitting.
Voting for bosses that make laws to chain people who can run their own school or hospital is unnecesary. Vote because it is the extent of power afforded to us now. Concurrently build better systems and power structures like anarchy.
0x0@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I think you mean anarchism.
for_some_delta@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
A fair point.
Anarchism is the ideology. Anarchy is the implentation. Anarchism can cause less confusion in people conditioned to think anarchy is a society without law or order.
Good catch.
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I don’t think you know what anarchism means.
Also, governments can build infrastructure without supporting foreign genocide.
The Original Commenter (OC) of this thread isn’t saying they want to abolish government entirely. They are saying that government has been twisted and no longer represents the wishes of its people.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t know maybe it is better. Yes many will die horribly but already is, just in another part of the world because of governments that are being used as tongs by billionaires